Talk:Van Johnson

Personal life
The "personal life" section troubles me as being geared too much toward his alleged sexual orientation, and as disproportionate. I've asked for a second opinion on the BLP noticeboard.--Stetsonharry (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. Much does not come close to the "reliable source" standard for BLP. Collect (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The two listed biographies (one of Mayer, one of Johnson) appear to be reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think I deled anything sourced to the two print bios. I did dele material which had refs which were decidely not RS. I also used a book search to find sources for the iffy material. Collect (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Collect, thank you very much for stepping in. Will, I agree with you about those being reliable sources. My concern was that the references to his sexual orientation seem disproportionate for such a small article. This is a 92 year old man who was for many years one of the leading stars of MGM studios. He had a major role in the studio during that era. He is one of the last major MGM stars of the 1940s who is still alive. Yet all we have here is a brief precis of his career and then a description of how he is gay. It is certainly worth mentioninng in a long bio, which this subject deserves, but it concerned me in one of this length. I was doubly concerned reading BLP as he is still alive. Then I went to Google Books to glance through a recent biography of Johnson, and found that it is ambivalent about his sexuality.
 * I will try to build up this article when I get a chance, but I really wonder whether the gay stuff is needed at this stage.--Stetsonharry (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I would think that if it's been documented in more than one reliable source, which it appears to have been, then whether it's "needed" or not is irrelevant. If it's a fact and part of his life, it belongs in his article.  However, I agree with you about proportion in that half the article shouldn't be about his sexual orientation.  But if there are sources, then at least a mention of it should be given.  --ScreaminEagle (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And it is mentioned. With about the weight it merits in a BLP. See his wife's quote. Any real need for more? Collect (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. I was making an argument against deleting mention of it altogether simply based upon the length of the article at present (see the comment above mine).  --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that, given the overall brevity of the article, the matter should be kept short. That's not to say it was unimportant. From a quick review of the biography available on Google books, it appears that the matter was the source of considerable anxiety on the part of the subject, his friends, his family, and his employers. Should the article ever grow substantially that section should grow as well, so long as it remains well-supported by reliable sources. But for the time being it looks fine as it is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've read further on this and I agree that the sexual reference, though controversial, should be retained as it is a significant issue in both the recent biography and other books. Still, this article needs to be lengthened to put it in the right perspective of a long career with many accomplishments not given sufficient detail or weight.--Stetsonharry (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. All we have about his sexuality is a "bisexual" category, which many readers would miss completely, plus this sentence:
 * ... Scott Eyman quotes her as saying, "Ours was a real marriage. I was in love with Van, but I wouldn't have married him if I'd known he was a homosexual."
 * Because it's divorced from its context, the quote could be read in 2 completely contrary ways:
 * A. I only discovered after we married that he liked men, and I would never have married him if I'd known.
 * B. He was straight, which is what made it a "real marriage" and not a sham marriage, and I would never have married him otherwise.
 * My first reading was B, until I happened to read the talk page. We need to make an explicit statement about his sexuality in the article and not just leave it to be inferred from the quote, which is clearly open to misinterpretation.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree the source isn't good, being third-hand, however, if B, surely she would have said ".. if I'd thought he was a homosexual"? This obviously needs some work with the original sources. Perhaps an obituary will mention it. -- Rodhull andemu  20:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * However, this would seem to support the theory that his was a marriage of convenience arranged by MGM to hide his homosexuality. -- Rodhull andemu  21:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's how I read it. Many Hollywood women contract sham marriages with men they know to be gay, and I read it as saying she wasn't such a woman and their marriage was not like that at all.  The use of "real marriage" supported this interpretation.  As I say, the context in which she made that statement is important, and taken out of its context, it can mean something quite different than it was supposed to mean.  If there had been any other reference to his gayness in the article, I would probably have read it as A.  But there wasn't.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the obituaries for Van Johnson, in particular the one in the New York Times - which does not even mention his sexual orientation - raised anew for me my earlier concerns about the extent to which such things are discussed in this article. I'm not saying they should not be mentioned, only that they should be mentioned in proportion to such a lengthy career. Clearly this article needs to be beefed up, but even if it is made longer I think the sexual orientnation aspect needs to be reduced, under WP:UNDUE. Just peruse the Times obituary and I think you can see why I am concerned. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have concerns about this too. I think there is a tendency throughout Wikipedia, but particularly in biographical articles, to try to explore all facets of the subject's life, even when it extends beyond their reason for notability.  I don't disagree with this as long as relevance is demonstrated, and it's done within the correct context and the with the correct weight and balance.  I can see relevance here, but the context and the weighting seem wrong to me.  Johnson's sexuality was never part of his notability nor did it ever become relevant in his later life or in the circumstances of his death, the way it did for people such as Rock Hudson or Ramon Novarro.   The fact is, his professional career can be well understood and well discussed without even going near his sexuality, and yet it seems to be more of an issue than his acting.  I'd like to see it trimmed right down so that it doesn't fall into the category of WP:UNDUE. I'm concerned that we are not being more discriminating in the information being used as much of it is second hand.   For example The Independent cites Arthur Laurent for the "public urinal" comment, and yet reading Laurent's brief quote he seems to be carefully avoiding naming the person.  Is there anything more than The Independent's use of the sentence to confirm that it is him?  It probably is... but wouldn't it be more prudent to examine the source rather than just select pieces from it?  Scott Eyman's quote is without context.  Perhaps what Eve Johnson said before and after this one sentence is just as important, but it's not there.   The article is attributing at least one comment - the divorce because of the affair with the young male lead - to Eve Johnson, but reading the article it was taken from, it is attributed to Eve's son, Ned, who quotes Eve after her death when she's not around to confirm.  In the Wikipedia article it's just attributed to Eve, so this particular snippet is not even second-hand, it's third hand - and Wikipedia becomes the 4th hand in the story.  The article also says that Eve Johnson made the comments "In 1999, when Evie was bitter and near poverty".   Neither she nor her son have a good word to say about Van Johnson, but the Independent article is biased in taking only their viewpoints.  We use it a source for the article, and do the same.   Eve made the comments in 1999, but The Independent prints it's obituary in 2004 without attributing her comments to a particular interview or to a particular journalist.   By our definition of WP:RS, I guess it passes, but it could as easily be a hatchet job.  It seems to me that it's not only a question of WP:UNDUE.  Rossrs (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's significant too, certainly to me if not to Wiki policy, that the obituaries that I have read so far do not mention his sexuality at all. To me, this indicates that it is simply not important in the overall scheme of things. The Wiki article is hampered by being far too short for the subject matter, and I am in the process of adding acting credits and fixing errors. But I think that for the time being the amount of content on his sexuality should be drastically reduced. I am sure that this article is being read a lot because of his death, and it behooves us to make it a fair representation of his life, which in my opinion it is not at this point. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it looks much better, and I will convert those links into citations at a later date. I've just realized that both of us editing at the same time could be counterproductive and lead to edit conflicts.  If this has already happened, I apologise.  Every second person was gay in Hollywood depending on who you read or choose to believe, and I've read elsewhere that Keenan Wynn was also gay/bixsexual.  If this is true, one has to wonder about Eve Johnson's motives, or perhaps the simple explanation is that she had faulty gaydar.   In any case, it is not my intention to open a can of worms about Keenan Wynn, merely a comment.  ;-)  Rossrs (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not then say, according to her son? That would make it clearer and less inflammatory, if that is the issue. What is inarguable is that the statements were made by (a) a wife who surely knew what she was talking about, though arguably holding a grudge and (b) repeated by a son, who was the subject's stepson, and therefore privy to his mother's beliefs. After all, she was sleeping with her husband and must surely have known at some point. We have to rely on published sources, and Ned Wynn's memoir is secondhand but then again he was Johnson's stepson and grew up with him. What precisely would be a better source?Kitchawan (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The quotes from Eve Johnson are taken directly from Ned Wynn's memoir and reproduced in her obituary in The Independent; would citing his memoir be better than linking to Eve's obituary? Let me know; I would be happy to fix that and provide the proper citation from the first-hand source rather than the second-hand source (though the quotes are accurate). Also, the quote about her not having married Johnson if "I knew he was a homosexual" is a direct quote from an interview she gave to the author of the Louis B Mayer biography; our job is not to question whether she meant to say "thought" or "knew"; she said knew, according to the quote and the footnote re the interview date also.Kitchawan (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to leave another note but I wanted to point something out: His sexuality may not be large in the scheme of things for some Wiki editors; however, what the published evidence suggests is relevant to the article re the extraordinary control the film studios had over their employees' lives and images. If the quotes and sources indicate that Johnson's public image was counter to his private life, due to studio machinations, then that should be part of the article, however lightly or heavily addressed.Kitchawan (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I hope not to belabor a point—none of the books have said that Johnson was bisexual; instead they state that he was a homosexual man who married a woman and had one child with her. That does not make him bisexual, which is an attraction to both males and females. None of the literature associates Johnson with any other woman than Eve Abbott. So I think it best to steer cleer of "bisexual" as an identifier re Johnson.Kitchawan (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Kitchawan, I think what you've done is fine. Attributing the comments directly to Ned Wynn is much better.  Previously it was attributed to The Independent who used Ned Wynn as a source but without making it clear where it came from.  It wasn't verifiable beyond that point.  You've made it verifiable and that's a definite improvement.   Johnson's quoted comments : the "it was a real marriage" quote is kind of vague.  I wasn't concerned whether Johnson said she "knew" or "thought".  I thought the whole sentence was ambiguous and possibly taken out of context.  True, it's not our job to question what Eve Johnson meant in her comment, but on the other hand, placing a quote without context is a problem when different editors interpret it differently.   That's when we need to either expand upon the quote to make it clearer, or to remove it.  It's been removed, and that's good.   The other comment about MGM pushing the marriage is much stronger.  To convey this piece of information, only one quote is needed, so now the stronger of the two is used.  I think that's better.  I was one of the people who commented about relevance, and I did say that I could see relevance, but I think you're right about linking it to MGM's handling of their performers, and that's definitely relevant.  I'm also glad that Johnson has been allowed to "reply" with his comment about the divorce being ugly.  It's only a minor addition but it makes the entire section look more balanced.   The whole section reads a lot better than it did before as it's brief, specific, relevant, more clearly attributed and the sourcing is good.   The rest of the article needs developing, but this section, in my opinion, is right.  Rossrs (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that labeling Johnson as "bisexual" might be incorrect. Either he meets the criteria for "homsexual" or there should be no category. I'm not familiar with the criteria for categorizing people's sexual orientation.Stetsonharry (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading way too much -- he was "human." Do we really need to label everyone? Collect (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * True, I am not comfortable with such a label myself. In fact, I think the "personal life" section is too long. This was not a major figure in the gossip columns, and his personal life and sexual orientation is not significant to his notability. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * removed comment from sock of banned user from here


 * To the writer of above paragraph. How mean and rude your statements are. Van Johnson was a wonderful actor. Eve was the love of his life and what you wrote above that he liked young men and teenage boys is lies. He was not gay. He was bisexual according to Eve and from other sources. Please do not disrespect actors on Wikipedia. 20yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

People think they're so clever in rejecting the idea of the label. Regardless, as part of the fascinating cultural history of gay leading men in mid-20th century Hollywood, the sourced information ought to be in the article - categories or no.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright
Sorry, I just reverted an edit here and hit the save page without explaining why. Although the source is cited, the text is copied directly from it and this is not permitted as it violates copyright. Rossrs (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent death template
Is that really necessary? I thought that was more for people when the circumstances of death were undetermined. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Van Johnson and the larger failure of Wikipedia
A few days ago, in a stroke of pure coincidence, after watching a Johnson movie on TV, I thought I'd find out more about the actor. This on or about the December 13.

Personally, my favorite performance of his, is Holly in Battleground - a gritty WWII movie that is one of the finest of its genre.

Nevertheless, I read (a few days ago) in the Personal Section that his wife said he was gay and that was the reason their relationship failed.

Now as a result of his death, there has been a flurry of activity and the armchair wikipedian brigade have been furiously tinkering.

The article that I read a few days ago has been almost rewritten and the point about his homosexuality has been removed...another example of wikiality at work.

All I can say, if he hadn't died, would things have stayed as is? But now that he is dead, revision is the order a la 1984.

I know what I read it and I have since read other articles from other sources that suggest Van was gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.68.11 (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The references rely on claims by the son of his ex-wife, or words attributed to the ex-wife, and any such claims would be attributed in that manner rather than stated as a "fact." Rumors about the deceased which are not backed by a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards do not belong in a biography. The changes in the article started well before his death, by the way. Collect (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's natural that an article may attract more attention following the death of its subject, but it's true that the changes began well before he died and will continue into the future.  The comments regarding his sexuality have not been removed, but a comment that appeared to have been taken out of context was removed, and several editors including myself, felt that his sexuality was given greater importance in the article than his acting career, which is the only reason for his notability.    Several people have looked at the information, considered whether it was conveyed in the clearest and most accurate manner, and with an appropriate emphasis, and then worked at changing it, all the while appreciating that it was not a done deal and that future editors could continue to develop it.  I'm not sure how this demonstrates a "larger failure of Wikipedia".  Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on what this person's (86.166.68.11) point is. There was a lot of discussion on the "personal life" section a good month before his death, in a discussion section that I initiated. At that time I expressed concern about the excessive discussion of his sexual orientation. The commenter does raise a good point about Battleground, which was a crucial role for Johnson. The discussion of that film and others needs to be increased, and I hope that he or she comes in and participates in the much-needed expansion of this article. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sexual orientation category
I think that we need to discuss what category, if any, should be placed concerning Johnson's sexual orientation. One editor added the "Gay actors" category and put it back when removed. My feeling is that there is insufficient sourcing for that. Frankly I feel that Wiki show business biographies dwell too much on sexual orientation in the first place (see William Eythe), but this is not the place to discuss that I imagine. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * At htis point, there is no evidence allowing us to firmly state that he was in any particular "sexual orientation" category. Statements from an estranged and angry spouse and stepson are of quite marginal probitive value indeed. :abelling a person without solid evidence is arguably a bad practice. Collect (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I am troubled that so much is devoted to allegations against Johnson by his ex-wife that have nothing to do with his notability. Even though some of these have been repeated in the media, my personal feeling is that it has no place in Wikipedia. An ex-wife involved in a bitter divorce is not a reliable source for allegations concerning sexual orientation. I'd like to take it out unless someone objects. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Allegations by angry spouses in general do not make for reliability - not just on sexual orientation. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I recall, I removed the ex-wife's allegations and then they were reinserted. I'm going to take the liberty of removing them again, and I hope that there can be discussion on this if there is disagreement. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit summary interrupted: sorry, I meant to say in an edit summary that I was removing the "LGBT studies" tag at the top of this page, as at the moment there is not enough evidence to classify Johnson as gay. I think that there needs to be more than the allegations of the ex-wife. Johnson himself never admitted it, and his biography, which I don't have but I've seen in Google Books, does not explicitly say so and also seems to be sourced again to Eve.Stetsonharry (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The is ample evidence that Johnson was Bisexual if not gay. The recent book by his daughter confirms that and an enlightening article by entertainment journalist Michael Musto entitle "Van Johnson Was Gay!" for the New York News is unambiguous about Johnson's sexuality. Will someone please do more research on this? Since his death a lot more information about his life is coming forth. 76.99.49.53 (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)buddmar


 * There is now documentation concerning Johnson's sexual orientation in a biography published by a reliable academic press. This is discussed in the article under "personal life".  An attempt was just made to delete this reference because, if it had been true, according to the deleter, it would have been reported in the National Enquirer.  This is absurd.  Using non-existent NE article is even less reliable than an actual NE article. --Jburlinson (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Gold to Silver Infobox color background
I have always wondered why on the actors infobox, some are gold and some are silver color backgrounds. You know, the box, on the top right of each actors page above their main picture. And specifically, I remember reading Van Johnson's article last month and it was Gold background, now it is silver background. Does it mean that the article was higher rated from gold, but reduced to a silver quality article. Can someone please explain, I can't explain this, it doesn't say it anywhere on wikipedia. Thank you. 20yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, It's interesting that you noted the change in color.  It would have changed when he died.  If you look around other articles, the gold ones denote living people, and the silver ones denote people who are deceased.   There is something built into the infobox template, so that if there is no data entered into the "date of death" field, it shows as gold.  When data is entered into the field it defaults to silver.   Rossrs (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a little trouble believing a daughter who was estranged from her father at the time of his death and is looking to sell books at a profit. I agree that there is not enough evidence to indicate his "sexual preference" - and tend to believe that since he had a wife and that wife admitted to having a child by him, he was at least heterosexual. It is vile and malicious to endeavor to find something different when it is not there. Why smear someone's name when not necessary and not enough facts to the contrary? (EAF)

Television Section
Very odd that for anyone born after 1970 the two televisin appearances that Mr. Johnson is continuously known for are not listed in the article. Van Johnson was on I love Lucy and on Nanny and the Professor (episode entitled: "Separate Rooms") Rozzz-L (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:EarlHollimanPlaybill.JPG
The image File:EarlHollimanPlaybill.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Major rewrite started
After stumbling on this article, I noticed that a "many cooks syndrome" has set in, and may benefit from a review and rewrite. Comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC).

Well, I do not know about a "major rewrite on this article, but I am having some real difficulty in the credibility of this author? Why? Because one of THE most important films of Van Johnson's life, Bottom of the Bottle, is not mentioned either in his film recognition or even in the list of his films. This was a very important role for the 'song and dance man' actor and should get credit where it is due. Amazing film and amazing acting by both him and Joseph Cotton. I would suggest the author relook over his/her facts and include all the info. (EAF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.107.149 (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

References note
Tried the link for #3, and it did NOT go to the article listed.

Could someone else check and make any needed cotrrectionsy?

Thank you. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)